Unitary Executive 'theory'- Does the President Really Know Best?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060120/cm_thenation/20060206delavega

of the need for check and balances... it is George Bush.

Crooks like this need to be restrained...

Five years ago.

I can find any! :shrug:

x(

mentioned as having started the idea. Maybe it was under another name. These creeps. And the Democrats can't see what's coming?

Unitary Executive is the Conservative version of the Patriarchal model with the belief that Bush is the "Father" of the country. This is the corner stone of COnservative philosophy. Conservatives need a sole entity to view as all powerful just under God and that is where this is coming from.

,...democratic republic. Don't they understand that? Or are they truly anti-American and anti-democracy? :shrug:

Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them)

This is a good an explanation as any as to why they do stuff.


"It is not "conservatism" that impelled the theft of the election, nor was it merely greed or the desire for power per se... The movement now in power is not entirely explicable in such familiar terms... The project here is ultimately pathological and essentially anti-political, albeit Machiavellian on a scale, and to a degree, that would have staggered Machiavelli. The aim is not to master politics, but to annihilate it. Bush, Rove, DeLay, Ralph Reed, et al. believe in "politics" in the same way that they and their corporate beneficiaries believe in "competition." In both cases, the intention is not to play the game but to end it – because the game requires some tolerance of the Other, and tolerance is precisely what these bitter-enders most despise... (Miller 81-2.)"

Doesn't that make them traitors and/or domestic enemies? :shrug:

I have seen posts by some Canadians here when asked how they could elect a Conservative after what the Cons have done in the U.S. say there are no parallels. No one would believe what is now happening in the U.S.. It could happen anywhere.

They're setting us up. I knew they were going for dictatorship, but I didn't realize they were this sneaky. Now our member of congress are lawyers. Why did no one see this coming until now?

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html

"Bush has used presidential "signing statements" - statements issued by the President upon signing a bill into law -- to expand his power. Each of his signing statements says that he will interpret the law in question "in a manner consistent with his constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch.""

"The Supreme Court has paid close attention to presidential signing statements. Indeed, in two important decisions -- the Chadha and Bowsher decisions - the Court relied in part on president signing statements in interpreting laws. Other federal courts, sources show, have taken note of them too.

President Bush has used presidential signing statements more than any previous president. From President Monroe's administration (1817-25) to the Carter administration (1977-81), the executive branch issued a total of 75 signing statements to protect presidential prerogatives. From Reagan's administration through Clinton's, the total number of signing statements ever issued, by all presidents, rose to a total 322.

In striking contrast to his predecessors, President Bush issued at least 435 signing statements in his first term alone. And, in these statements and in his executive orders, Bush used the term "unitary executive" 95 times. It is important, therefore, to understand what this doctrine means. "

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuhrerprinzip
The philosophy of the Führerprinzip sees each organization as a hierarchy of leaders, where every leader (Führer, in German) has absolute responsibility in his own area, demands absolute obedience from those below him and answers only to his superiors. The supreme leader, Adolf Hitler, answered to no one. The Führerprinzip paralleled the functionality of military organizations, which continue to use a similar structure today. The justification for the civil use of the Führerprinzip was that unquestioning obedience to superiors supposedly produced order and prosperity in which those deemed 'worthy' would share. Given the chaotic state of the Weimar Republic between 1919 and 1933, many Germans regarded this philosophy of 'cutting through red tape' as a welcome change to what they had endured earlier.

This principle became the law of the Nazi party and later transferred onto the whole German society. Appointed mayors replaced elected local governments. The Nazis suppressed associations and unions with elected leaders, putting in their place mandatory associations with appointed leaders. The authorities allowed private corporations to keep their internal organization, but with a simple renaming from hierarchy to Führerprinzip. In practice, the selection of unsuitable candidates often led to micromanagement and commonly to an inability to formulate coherent policy. Albert Speer noted that many Nazi officials dreaded making decisions in Hitler's absence. Rules tended to become verbal rather than written; leaders with initiative who flouted regulations and carved out their own spheres of influence might receive praise and promotion rather than censure.

Plain and simple